Posted on 08/01/2006 12:42:58 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
That's not the point. In a theocracy (or in that case a monarchy by divine right), all rights come from God, and they weren't respected as we see them today.
Determined is different than derived, no?
It doesn't matter whether the rights are derived from a deity or the concept of natural rights. Their enumeration is determined by man.
Simple example, the 2nd Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that it shall not be infringed. England, a more Christian-based country than ours, does not recognize that right. Besides, that right is barely recognized in our own country, as I'd call not being able to get a 13-round magazine for a pistol during the assault weapons ban an infringement.
As Paine pointed out in "Common Sense", the "divine right" of monarchs was not "divine". Paine cited the Bible to help make his case. God warned his people *against* raising up kings.
It doesn't matter whether the rights are derived from a deity or the concept of natural rights. Their enumeration is determined by man.
The enumeration by men only serves the purpose of laying out an outline for men's laws, which rights will a society defend, not create, defend. Natural law does not support the equality of men. Look at affirmative action to see how poorly government "creates" equality.
Simple example, the 2nd Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that it shall not be infringed. England, a more Christian-based country than ours, does not recognize that right. Besides, that right is barely recognized in our own country, as I'd call not being able to get a 13-round magazine for a pistol during the assault weapons ban an infringement.
When too many men believe their rights are derived from the state, the results you are seeing are to be expected. Anything the state can give, it can also take away.
Didn't say that it did - just responding to your "enjoy separation from God" comment - it would seem to imply that I had a choice in the matter.
Do remember that I was not talking about the king himself, but an official of the Church.
The enumeration by men only serves the purpose of laying out an outline for men's laws, which rights will a society defend, not create, defend. Natural law does not support the equality of men.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
When too many men believe their rights are derived from the state, the results you are seeing are to be expected.
Definitely. The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
I am very sorry to hear that.
They have?
Who?
Hard-sell.
Like the kind you get at a car lot.
Monarchs & church officials have something in common, they're human. Don't try to equate opinions of men about God's will with God's will.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
Yes, of course.
The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
Let's say I accept your premise, god-given & natural sources are interchangable. Beyond Ogg & his club, cite proof that it is in the nature of men to believe in individual liberty. I would argue that acceptance of servitude is just as natural, maybe even more natural. We partition ourselves into classes & accept our roles within our internalized class. Geeks, freaks & jocks (am I dating myself?) were the class labels used when I was a kid. White collar, professional, blue collar, working class, welfare class... even if we want better we accept our roles.
"antiRepublicrat" - standing on the outside shaking your fist at the herd mentality of your fellow citizens will not change their nature.
Unless God wants to come down and clearly set down his will and the fine interpretations of it, his will is determined by the opinions of men.
White collar, professional, blue collar, working class, welfare class... even if we want better we accept our roles.
No we don't, otherwise there would be no progress. Communism wanted people to accept their roles. The Church wanted people to accept their roles (don't worry, Heaven will be better, we promise). Over here we have a poor Irish immigrant kid in the 1800s growing up to be the richest person in the country.
"antiRepublicrat" - standing on the outside shaking your fist at the herd mentality of your fellow citizens will not change their nature.
Actually, its a combination of lamentation that the two parties are almost alike and often act in unison against the good of the people ("bipartisan" is the scariest word in politics), and a reference to Washington's warning about the power of party.
A good answer is because God says so. Look at the first four words of the Bible! “In the beginning God.....”
As it should be. (It almost seems as if Colson sneers at that particular aspect of today's culture). Of course neither he nor the authors of the book he's pushing provide such evidence. Belief in God is just that - belief. Faith, not science. ...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.